Is the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) really safe?
The relationship between government agencies and corporate/trade organizations could be undermining the practicality of the Safe Drinking Water Act and other similar environmental legislative decisions. There are still many instances of water contamination that go unpunished.
How much is really enforced, and to what extent is it enforced? Does the Safe Drinking Water Act give a false sense of security to the public?
What does the law say?
The Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA) was created to reinforce and correct the weaknesses of the Clean Water Act. The law was amended in 1986 and in 1996. The 1996 amendments "improved" the law by including source water protection (USEPA); however, states are permitted to have partnerships with public water systems, local governments, and private companies to achieve their goal of water contaminant reduction (Law Library 2010).
This amendment requires the EPA to set primary drinking water regulations for any pollutants that can possibly affect human health. The SDWA is primarily focused on groundwater contamination, as the CWA focuses on surface-water contamination (Law Library 2010). Its primary focus is to protect the nation's drinking water sources and protect human health to the maximum extent possible using proper water treatment techniques. The law also allows the EPA to set national health standards.
The EPA sets "maximum contaminant levels" (aka MCLs) under the act, and there are 27 pollutants and 87 secondary levels for 82 additional contaminants. The EPA must "periodically publish this list of contaminants which is used to prioritize research and data collection efforts" (USEPA). However, the are over 75,000 chemicals in our drinking water!
Is this law truly protecting our water supplies?
According to an EPA analytical study, the SDWA has been violated in every state. According to a research study, "these violations primarily involve monitoring and reporting shortcomings, but also include errors in thousands of standards and treatment technqiues" (Tiemann 2008). The National Wildlife Federation also supports in their estimates that 100,000 violations of the SDWA occur nationally every year.
Studies have shown that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of illnesses within the U.S. each year. According to a New York Times article on Drinking water, since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium. As many as 19 million Americans may become ill due to parasites, viruses, and bacteria in the water supplies (Duhigg 2009).
Greater than 20% of water treatment systems in the U.S. have violated key provisions of the SWDA in the past 5 years. Less than 6% of these cases were punished at state and federal levels.
Why is this occurring?
Loopholes in the law There are several reasons why there are pitfalls in regulating water supplies under the SDWA. As mentioned previously, states are permitted to have partnerships with public water systems, local governments, and private companies. This combination of agencies does not facilitate a complete and thorough regulation of water supplies. The allowance of partnerships places the responsibility of the private and domestic owner of that well. The EPA does not have the authority to regulate private water supplies, they only have the power to write the environmental laws. Consequently, this allows private companies to keep any contamination episodes hidden from the public.
Water privatization Corporate power is a major component of the reason water supplies go unchecked. According to a study on water privatization, the water supply is "susceptible to monopolistic control... and a majority of contracts (private) have been granted the rights to operate water infrastructure for 20-30 years" (Baker 2003). Most of these companies are Fortun 100 companies. The EPA only requires that if disinfection byproducts enter the private water supply, then the private supplier must notify their customers as soon as possible. In 1995, private/investor owned water supply utilities accounted for about 14% of total water revenues of total water system assets in the U.S. (State Environmental Resource Center 2001).
Lack of Accountability and Enforcement Procedures The Safe Drinking Water Act requires monitoring of individual water systems by sampling and using laboratory testing to make sure that the water meets federal and state standards. Unfortunately, how often and where samples are taken varies from system to system. The states and the EPA enforce violations via requiring states to have a formal enforcement authority and an administrative penalty authority (USEPA). The first response to a violation is an informal action, such as a reminder letter. When violations pose an immediate threat to public health, states resort to formal action (judicial action); howver, the enforcement of the SWDA has not been a federal priority, which is statistically shown.
Solution? The main issue in safe drinking water legislation is the lack of accountability of industry and violators. This is the main reason why many supplies become contaminated. Secondly, the EPA doesn't have strict enforcement standards for violators and the power to enforce private water suppliers.
Personally, I feel the problem is the massive amount of water taps that exist and the lack of managerial expertise to keep them in check; however, it is not that black and white. The role of industry to keep their violations unpunished is also a major problem.
I propose an amendment to the Safe Water Drinking Act to increase the EPA's enforcement standards, managerial expertise, and organizational practices.
An example: 1) include private companies in regulatory practices and issue large fines for violation 2) Divide water supplies into larger groups with a main enforcement agency 3) mandate more frequent water quality reports for review and make them readily available to the public domain.
How drilling for natural gas in Wyoming is contaminating water supplies, yet the EPA considered hydraulic fracturing to be safe in regards to drinking water
Hydrofracturing in NYC's watershed could lead to serious drinking water contamination issues
Is the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) really safe?
The relationship between government agencies and corporate/trade organizations could be undermining the practicality of the Safe Drinking Water Act and other similar environmental legislative decisions. There are still many instances of water contamination that go unpunished.
How much is really enforced, and to what extent is it enforced? Does the Safe Drinking Water Act give a false sense of security to the public?
What does the law say?
The Safe Water Drinking Act (SDWA) was created to reinforce and correct the weaknesses of the Clean Water Act. The law was amended in 1986 and in 1996. The 1996 amendments "improved" the law by including source water protection (USEPA); however, states are permitted to have partnerships with public water systems, local governments, and private companies to achieve their goal of water contaminant reduction (Law Library 2010).
This amendment requires the EPA to set primary drinking water regulations for any pollutants that can possibly affect human health. The SDWA is primarily focused on groundwater contamination, as the CWA focuses on surface-water contamination (Law Library 2010). Its primary focus is to protect the nation's drinking water sources and protect human health to the maximum extent possible using proper water treatment techniques. The law also allows the EPA to set national health standards.
The EPA sets "maximum contaminant levels" (aka MCLs) under the act, and there are 27 pollutants and 87 secondary levels for 82 additional contaminants. The EPA must "periodically publish this list of contaminants which is used to prioritize research and data collection efforts" (USEPA). However, the are over 75,000 chemicals in our drinking water!
Is this law truly protecting our water supplies?
According to an EPA analytical study, the SDWA has been violated in every state. According to a research study, "these violations primarily involve monitoring and reporting shortcomings, but also include errors in thousands of standards and treatment technqiues" (Tiemann 2008). The National Wildlife Federation also supports in their estimates that 100,000 violations of the SDWA occur nationally every year.
Studies have shown that drinking water contaminants are linked to millions of illnesses within the U.S. each year. According to a New York Times article on Drinking water, since 2004, the water provided to more than 49 million people has contained illegal concentrations of chemicals like arsenic or radioactive substances like uranium. As many as 19 million Americans may become ill due to parasites, viruses, and bacteria in the water supplies (Duhigg 2009).
Greater than 20% of water treatment systems in the U.S. have violated key provisions of the SWDA in the past 5 years. Less than 6% of these cases were punished at state and federal levels.
Why is this occurring?
Loopholes in the law
There are several reasons why there are pitfalls in regulating water supplies under the SDWA. As mentioned previously, states are permitted to have partnerships with public water systems, local governments, and private companies. This combination of agencies does not facilitate a complete and thorough regulation of water supplies. The allowance of partnerships places the responsibility of the private and domestic owner of that well. The EPA does not have the authority to regulate private water supplies, they only have the power to write the environmental laws. Consequently, this allows private companies to keep any contamination episodes hidden from the public.
Water privatization
Corporate power is a major component of the reason water supplies go unchecked. According to a study on water privatization, the water supply is "susceptible to monopolistic control... and a majority of contracts (private) have been granted the rights to operate water infrastructure for 20-30 years" (Baker 2003). Most of these companies are Fortun 100 companies. The EPA only requires that if disinfection byproducts enter the private water supply, then the private supplier must notify their customers as soon as possible. In 1995, private/investor owned water supply utilities accounted for about 14% of total water revenues of total water system assets in the U.S. (State Environmental Resource Center 2001).
Lack of Accountability and Enforcement Procedures
The Safe Drinking Water Act requires monitoring of individual water systems by sampling and using laboratory testing to make sure that the water meets federal and state standards. Unfortunately, how often and where samples are taken varies from system to system. The states and the EPA enforce violations via requiring states to have a formal enforcement authority and an administrative penalty authority (USEPA). The first response to a violation is an informal action, such as a reminder letter. When violations pose an immediate threat to public health, states resort to formal action (judicial action); howver, the enforcement of the SWDA has not been a federal priority, which is statistically shown.
Solution?
The main issue in safe drinking water legislation is the lack of accountability of industry and violators. This is the main reason why many supplies become contaminated. Secondly, the EPA doesn't have strict enforcement standards for violators and the power to enforce private water suppliers.
Personally, I feel the problem is the massive amount of water taps that exist and the lack of managerial expertise to keep them in check; however, it is not that black and white. The role of industry to keep their violations unpunished is also a major problem.
I propose an amendment to the Safe Water Drinking Act to increase the EPA's enforcement standards, managerial expertise, and organizational practices.
An example: 1) include private companies in regulatory practices and issue large fines for violation 2) Divide water supplies into larger groups with a main enforcement agency 3) mandate more frequent water quality reports for review and make them readily available to the public domain.
Links
References:
"Archipelagos and Networks: Urbanization and Water Privatization in the South - Bakker - 2003 - Geographical Journal." Wiley Online Library. 2 Dec. 2003. Web. 24 Oct. 2010. <http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.0016-7398.2003.00097.x/full>.
Duhigg, Charles. "Millions in U.S. Drink Dirty Water, Records Show." New York Times. 7 Dec. 2009. Web. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/08/business/energy-environment/08water.html?_r=2>.
"Environmental Law - Safe Water Drinking Act." Law Library. Web. 22 Oct. 2010. <http://law.jrank.org/pages/22705/Environmental-Law-Safe-Drinking-Water-Act.html>.
"Regulating Public Water Systems and Contaminants Under the Safe Drinking Water Act | Regulation Development | US EPA." EPA Office of Water Home | Water | US EPA. Web. 18 Oct. 2010. <http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/basicinformation.cfm>.
"Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) | Safe Drinking Water Act | US EPA." EPA Office of Water Home | Water | US EPA. Web. 24 Oct. 2010. <http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/index.cfm>.
Tiemann, Mary. "Safe Water Drinking Act: Implementation and Issues." Library of Congress, 3 May 2006. Web. <http://ncseonline.org/nle/crsreports/06Apr/IB10118.pdf>.
"Water Privatization - Fact Pack." State Environmental Resource Center - Welcome. 2001. Web. 24 Oct. 2010. <http://www.serconline.org/waterPrivatization/fact.html>.
"Wells | Drinking | Mid-Atlantic Water | US EPA." US Environmental Protection Agency. Web. 24 Oct. 2010. <http://www.epa.gov/reg3wapd/drinking/wells.htm>.